Jesse wrote: Now if it came out that she was secretly married to a woman, that would be different.

So you are ok with using sexual preference as a weapon but not something gender-related? This means one of two things: (1) You are ok with woman's rights, but don't like queers; or (2) you are being intellectually dishonest in this discussion.

It would have been different in terms of whether it could even be ascribed as hypocritical, that's all. It still wouldn't constitute a non-gross point to attack, or help to invalidate her (easily invalidated by other means) point of view.

I was lazy in the way I wrote that. I thought that I was otherwise being more clear than I actually was.

redball wrote: Her sexuality isn't being used against her at all. Not at all. Never was.

When she entered into pageantry she agreed to certain things. She agreed not to do things like take topless photos. She did take topless photos and they were exposed purely because she's newsworthy, not because she's a she. That negatively affects her career in pageantry, which, given her bigotry, we're in favor of.

I think you're mistaken about anyone else involved in this conversation caring about the pageant even the tiniest bit. I don't think people attach any particular prestige to the title and care if she holds it or loses it. I think people just see a vertical trajectory for her at all and cheer anything that could conceivably move her downward on it.

And for me that doesn't fly, because we are America and we do not fucking use torture.

Quote: To assume that this is a case where pro same sex marriage groups sought to destroy her via use of her own sexuality is ignorant of reality.

For my part, I'm not talking about the actions of groups. I'm talking about the popular discourse, and particularly the corner of it where everyday folks who quite rightly hate bigotry indulge in sexist standards when it helps them to hate a bigot.

redball wrote: Society doesn't because women do that every day and still maintain their previous stature. Social conservatives do, and that's where pageantry has derived its value system from... society passed and social conservatives of now.

yeah I'm having trouble jumping into this argument because it seems so obvious that Jesse and Futurist are right, and that the pure schadenfreude (I had to look up how to spell that) which obviously underlies redball and the mean's argument has no particular merit. If you don't subscribe to an evangelical value system it is disingenuous and just... silly to try to hold someone else to it. Even someone who has one and violates it. You calling them out doesn't make them a hypocrite, it makes you one. because now you're saying there's some merit/value in such a system. it's dumb.

this completely aside from the question of whether it's actually hypocritical to violate your own value system, or whether it's just human to be inconsistent. the bar for hypocrisy is higher than one incident that happened when she was (maybe, I don't really buy it) 17. especially considering what futurist is trying so hard to explain to y'all about women and female socialization and the demonization of female sexuality. there's a reason some trees are bonsais.

and making fun of beauty queens for being vapid starlets is clever how? i mean the term "beauty queen"... it means that. there's nothing good about this topic and it doesn't need to be in the public dialogue. let's stop paying attention to beauty paegants, and maybe they will go away.

edit: also, the idea that it's somehow a good thing to enjoy when bad things happen to bad people even if they happen for the wrong reasons -- it's rotten to the core. there is nothing noble or even decent about that entire train of thought. pick a two-word pair in that sentence and i have a problem with it.

finally, the argument that this is based on an interest in destroying someone who is bigoted, by any possible means. again, completely wrong-minded. and the play director in san francisco is a completely different situation, and is not a parallel to this one. gay people felt betrayed by that person because he is in relationship to them and knew them personally. this is just someone who had a different point of view and happened to express it in a way that made them open to cruel ridicule. ridiculing her is not bringing your point any farther along than it was the moment she said that stupid shit.

Wed May 06, 2009 11:52 pm

redball

Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6877
Location: Northern New Jersey

1. I have defended from the very beginning that the picture in question does NOT make this woman a hypocrite in any way shape or form. I would appreciate if anyone choosing to attack that standpoint specifically separate it from any arguments against my standpoints. It'd be best if you simply address the person(s) who have that standpoint directly, whoever they are.

2. My central point of contention is that we can enjoy something bad happening to a bad person. The jury may still be out on whether this is a bad person but we've seen a lot of evidence to one side and none to the other. To be clear, we're not even talking about something all that bad that's happening to her. Does anyone even know what it would mean if she's stripped of the crown. The schadenfreude that Embryo mentions was not me justifying the media treatment of this woman, it was the key component of this story that I was defending.

3. I've had no intention of defending the media's treatment of this story. Ever. I believe that the story is valid and does not have sexist roots (beyond the fact that pageantry itself is sexist, which we cannot remove from this woman's story at this point). What the media does with it after I can't control and won't defend. I've learned to largely ignore media spin on almost any story. If the issue you take is based on how the media is spinning this then I won't argue with you because I simply don't care to, and I never was arguing with you on that point. Even if I wanted to (which, again, I did not) I would be woefully unprepared. I don't read tabloid news and until last night I hadn't had access to cable news networks for months.

4. I think if you abstract what is happening down to the core you will find that it is not sexist. That doesn't make it right, I suppose. That's a matter of ethics. Once you're famous you're fair game. Perhaps the media treats the resulting story differently, but that doesn't make the act of finding a skeleton to use against someone who is prominently supporting an opposing viewpoint sexist. The core of this is not sexism, it's a part of our tabloid culture that affects both genders. Even when we like someone we take 'em out because that kind of story keeps rubes glued to the tube.

Quote: Why do you at your base feel that men and women are viewed and treated equally in the media? Do you concede that men and women have ever been treated unequally in the media? If so, when did the equality happen, and what do you think defines that change?

I don't think that the media treats men and women fairly. I simply stated that this exact scenario would play out regardless of gender. Someone who is newsworthy will be exposed if they break rules. Even if they only potentially break rules. There is a long history of this happening, and it has only accelerated in recent years.

I still firmly believe that this is only a story of any kind because she potentially broke rules (whether you agree with those rules or not, you must concede that she had to agree to take part in these pageants). I doubt that many people in the real world, outside of media sensationalization, are offended by the picture or that she was in it. I don't even think they're upset that she broke the rules. I think that most people who give a rats ass about this story only care about whether she loses her title due to breaking the rules, which would be a direct result of her being newsworthy, which is a result of what she said.

I don't pretend to deny that sexism in the media exists. Never did. I'm saying that sexism isn't what's fueling this fire. Sexism is something that the media may be throwing onto it, but it isn't what started it nor is it what keeps it going.

Thu May 07, 2009 7:55 am

jakethesnakeguy who cried about wrestling being real

Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one

While I admittedly haven't read ALL the posts (just most) in this thread because for 2 pages it seemed to turn into "Shut up" "no u" "no u^2" so I skimmed that shit but...

Embryo wrote: yeah I'm having trouble jumping into this argument because it seems so obvious that Jesse and Futurist are right, and that the pure schadenfreude (I had to look up how to spell that) which obviously underlies redball and the mean's argument has no particular merit. If you don't subscribe to an evangelical value system it is disingenuous and just... silly to try to hold someone else to it. Even someone who has one and violates it. You calling them out doesn't make them a hypocrite, it makes you one. because now you're saying there's some merit/value in such a system. it's dumb.

I agree. This is why I said we need to split the argument into separate subjects. The fact that she broke the rules of a contest and whether the rules are warranted in the first place. I used sports and referees as an example because that IS a valid comparison to a beauty pageant, which is a contest (with contestants like sports players) and judges (like referees). I'm not going to applaud someone who breaks the rules of a sporting event and wins, even if I disagree with the rules. That's called cheating. There are plenty of people who disagree with the rules of whatever game they play but they still have to play by the rules. The mean posted the article on her getting a boob job and said that it shouldn't be part of the discussion, which was then used as everyone as an argument. I don't care that she got a boob job, but if she signed up for an event that specifically says she cannot pose nude or semi-nude and then does so, she violated the rules of the game she is playing. Whether anyone here agrees with those rules or not is irrelevant. She should be held to the rules of the sport, just like every other sport in existence.

Quote:
this completely aside from the question of whether it's actually hypocritical to violate your own value system, or whether it's just human to be inconsistent. the bar for hypocrisy is higher than one incident that happened when she was (maybe, I don't really buy it) 17. especially considering what futurist is trying so hard to explain to y'all about women and female socialization and the demonization of female sexuality. there's a reason some trees are bonsais.

I agree with futur that women are held to an unattainable standard. This is why I said we should discuss it as a separate topic than the rule-breaking. People are still mingling the two. I don't think I've ever really cared about a Miss USA pageant, and certainly haven't watched one for 10+ years. These women are choosing to participate in this event, you cannot blame society for their choices. Which is it ladies? Do you want to be held to the standards of a beauty pageant? If not why do you keep entering them? I think envy or desiring people to be jealous of you plays a huge part in this, or wanting to be popular or famous. It's sad what people will go through to be looked up to instead of being themselves. While the pageant exists, people will sign up. While people sign up it, it will continue to exist. As long as we have Jon-Benet Ramseys in the world, the cycle will continue. I can only work to teach my children to be who they are and not who they are expected to be and hope that others do the same. Maybe someday our collective unconscious will be disgusted enough with how we are "supposed to view women" that the "fake beauty" we see in pageants will become obsolete.

I don't respect people who pop steroids (see: all of them) to win a body builder competition, they look stupid and fake, even if they are expected to look that way, by their peers and judges and society. I don't respect people who modify themselves for a beauty pageant in the same way, they look (and sound) stupid and fake, even if society, their peers, and judges expect them to look that way. So yeah, I will hold them to the same standard as cheaters in a game.

Quote:
and making fun of beauty queens for being vapid starlets is clever how? i mean the term "beauty queen"... it means that. there's nothing good about this topic and it doesn't need to be in the public dialogue. let's stop paying attention to beauty paegants, and maybe they will go away.

Beauty comes in many forms, for some of us it's intelligence. Stupid people are not attractive to me, and she's as bone-headed as they come. Don't be shallow. There is a reason they put the Q/A session in. If you're going to intermingle your own values with the rules of the event then how can you then turn around and say "well she's supposed to be beautiful, who CARES whether she's smart". They don't get a free pass to be complete idiots just because you or whoever else thinks beauty is in the boob size. Speaking of hypocrisy...

She's being judged on that as part of the pageant. An intelligence test. You're the ones being ignorant on this point. You can't have your cake and eat it too, so to speak.

Quote:
edit: also, the idea that it's somehow a good thing to enjoy when bad things happen to bad people even if they happen for the wrong reasons -- it's rotten to the core. there is nothing noble or even decent about that entire train of thought. pick a two-word pair in that sentence and i have a problem with it.

I disagree. My belief system exists because I believe that people get what they deserve. I believe that people punish themselves based on their own beliefs. "Bad" things happening to "Bad" people is a balancing factor. I believe that "bad" things happening to "good" people is a misunderstanding based on not having a complete view of a situation, just as "good" things happening to "bad" people is as well. I find my belief system to be superior to people who belief that "God" punishes those who are bad and rewards those who are good. I also think that people should believe whatever they want, but I'm sure as hell going to point out the hypocrisy in the system. As a former Catholic, I find Catholics to be the biggest offenders of their own 10 commandments simply because they can "ask for forgiveness" and "God will forgive". Then when shit hits the fan they just start praying and wondering why "bad things happen to good people" and chanting the mantra that "God will make it right in heaven". That shit don't fly with me. Bad things happen because people go against what they know to be right and wrong, good and evil, not because they go against what they pretend they believe is right or wrong.

Quote:
finally, the argument that this is based on an interest in destroying someone who is bigoted, by any possible means. again, completely wrong-minded. and the play director in san francisco is a completely different situation, and is not a parallel to this one. gay people felt betrayed by that person because he is in relationship to them and knew them personally. this is just someone who had a different point of view and happened to express it in a way that made them open to cruel ridicule. ridiculing her is not bringing your point any farther along than it was the moment she said that stupid shit.

And so we come full circle. She's destroying herself. By breaking the known rules of a pageant she signed up for, she set herself up to be disqualified. By being unintelligent, she's failing the intelligence requirements of the pageant. By spouting her beliefs, she's subjecting herself to judgment on them. By joining the pageant in the first place, she's adding to the collective view of what society believes to be beauty. Her motives are obviously personal. She doesn't give a shit about society's view of "women". She got the boob job to be a pawn of the pageant. She sold her own beliefs out before she got on stage, but as a last ditch effort to save face, she almost literally spat in the face of a gay man saying that he shouldn't have the right to marry someone he loved because she wanted to prove that she had some shred of her beliefs left after shitting all over them to get to that point.

Just one problem. She's a scrub. She wasn't fully playing to win the game. If she was she would have kept her mouth shut about her cloned beliefs regarding marriage. But she didn't. She lost the game because she wasn't really prepared to do whatever it took to win. She was willing to dump all over her beliefs up to the point where she was flat out asked to shit on them into a microphone, but she wouldn't go that far. She lost the game to someone who was willing to play the game better. She is no Richard Hatch.

Embryo wrote: yeah I'm having trouble jumping into this argument because it seems so obvious that Jesse and Futurist are right, and that the pure schadenfreude (I had to look up how to spell that) which obviously underlies redball and the mean's argument has no particular merit. If you don't subscribe to an evangelical value system it is disingenuous and just... silly to try to hold someone else to it. Even someone who has one and violates it. You calling them out doesn't make them a hypocrite, it makes you one. because now you're saying there's some merit/value in such a system. it's dumb.

I agree. This is why I said we need to split the argument into separate subjects. The fact that she broke the rules of a contest and whether the rules are warranted in the first place.

I don't think you actually agree with anything I wrote, hahah. If these are the issues you think are important in this conversation we're not having the same conversation. The competition is stupid, therefore the rules are not important. It is disingenuous to make hay about the rules of a "sport" (lol) you don't care about. None of us care about this. We're not having this conversation because some stupid rule was broken. The reason is completely different and yet no one is talking about it except Jesse and Futurist.

Quote:

Quote:
this completely aside from the question of whether it's actually hypocritical to violate your own value system, or whether it's just human to be inconsistent. the bar for hypocrisy is higher than one incident that happened when she was (maybe, I don't really buy it) 17. especially considering what futurist is trying so hard to explain to y'all about women and female socialization and the demonization of female sexuality. there's a reason some trees are bonsais.

I agree with futur that women are held to an unattainable standard. This is why I said we should discuss it as a separate topic than the rule-breaking. People are still mingling the two. I don't think I've ever really cared about a Miss USA pageant, and certainly haven't watched one for 10+ years. These women are choosing to participate in this event, you cannot blame society for their choices. Which is it ladies? Do you want to be held to the standards of a beauty pageant? If not why do you keep entering them?

Are you serious dude?

You don't think that society has a role in the choices we make?

And you do realize that these "ladies" don't represent women in general right? That maybe some women DO want to be held to the standards of a beauty pageant, while others might not? And that there is no ONE choice they all must make? Wow.

Next: How does this...

Quote: I don't respect people who pop steroids (see: all of them) to win a body builder competition, they look stupid and fake, even if they are expected to look that way, by their peers and judges and society. I don't respect people who modify themselves for a beauty pageant in the same way, they look (and sound) stupid and fake, even if society, their peers, and judges expect them to look that way.

..lead to this?

Quote: So yeah, I will hold them to the same standard as cheaters in a game.

What the hell? "I think beauty pageants are dumb, so I will judge people using their metrics." No. Again, I don't believe you.

Quote:

Quote:
and making fun of beauty queens for being vapid starlets is clever how? i mean the term "beauty queen"... it means that. there's nothing good about this topic and it doesn't need to be in the public dialogue. let's stop paying attention to beauty paegants, and maybe they will go away.

Beauty comes in many forms, for some of us it's intelligence. Stupid people are not attractive to me, and she's as bone-headed as they come. Don't be shallow. There is a reason they put the Q/A session in. If you're going to intermingle your own values with the rules of the event then how can you then turn around and say "well she's supposed to be beautiful, who CARES whether she's smart". They don't get a free pass to be complete idiots just because you or whoever else thinks beauty is in the boob size. Speaking of hypocrisy...

.........................

what?

"beauty queen" is a phrase that has both beauty and queen in it. however when paired together they mean something very specific. at NO point did i make the slightest suggestion that i find this pageant or "vapid starlets" to represent true beauty.

nor did i say i did not care whether she was smart. however, attacking someone for not being smart is a dick move at best. blaming her for her vapidity when the fact that she's a beauty queen indicates that she has been misled at best is just really, really tone deaf. I reject your value judgments of this women based upon her perceived intelligence. That does not mean I'm making any sort of value judgement based upon beauty that some may perceive.

Quote: She's being judged on that as part of the pageant. An intelligence test. You're the ones being ignorant on this point. You can't have your cake and eat it too, so to speak.

If the judges were smarter than Perez Hilton maybe I would find this to be a meaningful category.

Quote:

Quote:
edit: also, the idea that it's somehow a good thing to enjoy when bad things happen to bad people even if they happen for the wrong reasons -- it's rotten to the core. there is nothing noble or even decent about that entire train of thought. pick a two-word pair in that sentence and i have a problem with it.

I disagree. My belief system exists because I believe that people get what they deserve. I believe that people punish themselves based on their own beliefs. "Bad" things happening to "Bad" people is a balancing factor. I believe that "bad" things happening to "good" people is a misunderstanding based on not having a complete view of a situation, just as "good" things happening to "bad" people is as well.

Your "belief system" based on "bad" and "good" people is great... for me to poop on. As is your apparent belief that the torture of KSM is a net plus considering that he's obviously a "bad" person and that the form in which punishment arrives is irrelevant as long this "bad" person is punished. Karma is apparently a weapon of mass destruction.

Quote: I find my belief system to be superior to people who belief that "God" punishes those who are bad and rewards those who are good. I also think that people should believe whatever they want, but I'm sure as hell going to point out the hypocrisy in the system. As a former Catholic, I find Catholics to be the biggest offenders of their own 10 commandments simply because they can "ask for forgiveness" and "God will forgive". Then when shit hits the fan they just start praying and wondering why "bad things happen to good people" and chanting the mantra that "God will make it right in heaven". That shit don't fly with me. Bad things happen because people go against what they know to be right and wrong, good and evil, not because they go against what they pretend they believe is right or wrong.

I don't think "knowing" has much to do with it, though. Otherwise I agree with you. But the "knowing" part is classic attribution error. You should be more sympathetic to people. Most know not what they do.

Quote:

Quote: finally, the argument that this is based on an interest in destroying someone who is bigoted, by any possible means. again, completely wrong-minded. and the play director in san francisco is a completely different situation, and is not a parallel to this one. gay people felt betrayed by that person because he is in relationship to them and knew them personally. this is just someone who had a different point of view and happened to express it in a way that made them open to cruel ridicule. ridiculing her is not bringing your point any farther along than it was the moment she said that stupid shit.

And so we come full circle. She's destroying herself. By breaking the known rules of a pageant she signed up for, she set herself up to be disqualified.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Richard Hatch.

At least she got free boobs out of it though.

Oh my God who cares.

Thu May 07, 2009 9:58 am

jakethesnakeguy who cried about wrestling being real

Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one

Embryo wrote: I don't think you actually agree with anything I wrote, hahah. If these are the issues you think are important in this conversation we're not having the same conversation. The competition is stupid, therefore the rules are not important. It is disingenuous to make hay about the rules of a "sport" (lol) you don't care about. None of us care about this. We're not having this conversation because some stupid rule was broken. The reason is completely different and yet no one is talking about it except Jesse and Futurist.

We are having the discussion because some "stupid" rule was broken. That is, actually what started the discussion.

Quote: Are you serious dude?

You don't think that society has a role in the choices we make?

And you do realize that these "ladies" don't represent women in general right? That maybe some women DO want to be held to the standards of a beauty pageant, while others might not? And that there is no ONE choice they all must make? Wow.

Then why don't those people just live their lives without caring what someone in a beauty pageant looks like? Are you suggesting that people are forced into beauty pageantry by our society? Or that women are forced to make choices about themselves because beauty pageants exist? Or both? I thought we had already decided that beauty pageants are no longer relevant.

Or do you just not believe in freedom of choice in these matters? Because I don't make choices based on what I think society wants me to make, and I don't feel that it's a huge step to make to do that.

Quote:
Next: How does this...

Quote: I don't respect people who pop steroids (see: all of them) to win a body builder competition, they look stupid and fake, even if they are expected to look that way, by their peers and judges and society. I don't respect people who modify themselves for a beauty pageant in the same way, they look (and sound) stupid and fake, even if society, their peers, and judges expect them to look that way.

..lead to this?

Quote: So yeah, I will hold them to the same standard as cheaters in a game.

What the hell? "I think beauty pageants are dumb, so I will judge people using their metrics." No. Again, I don't believe you.

"beauty queen" is a phrase that has both beauty and queen in it. however when paired together they mean something very specific. at NO point did i make the slightest suggestion that i find this pageant or "vapid starlets" to represent true beauty.

nor did i say i did not care whether she was smart. however, attacking someone for not being smart is a dick move at best. blaming her for her vapidity when the fact that she's a beauty queen indicates that she has been misled at best is just really, really tone deaf. I reject your value judgments of this women based upon her perceived intelligence. That does not mean I'm making any sort of value judgement based upon beauty that some may perceive.

Ok so what the fuck do you judge her on then? The fact that you seem to think that she's pigeonholed into her role as a woman in this society that she can only be judged on her looks? If she's going to spearhead a movement of anti gay rights then I'm sure as fuck going to attack her intelligence. It would be asinine not to. Should I, instead, be saying "well she's a beauty queen, and forced so by society, so we can ignore the fact that she spews shit out of her mouth in the name of God while all in the same motion spearheading a movement that is wrecking the rights of millions of people?" It's ok, because you don't think she should be held to any intelligence standards. She's just a poor, helpless, beauty queen, we should be judging her on looks alone! I don't think you've really taken a good look at what you're defending here.

Quote:

Quote: She's being judged on that as part of the pageant. An intelligence test. You're the ones being ignorant on this point. You can't have your cake and eat it too, so to speak.

If the judges were smarter than Perez Hilton maybe I would find this to be a meaningful category.

Fair enough. This still doesn't give her a free pass to be a spokesperson for an anti-gay movement.

Quote:
Your "belief system" based on "bad" and "good" people is great... for me to poop on. As is your apparent belief that the torture of KSM is a net plus considering that he's obviously a "bad" person and that the form in which punishment arrives is irrelevant as long this "bad" person is punished. Karma is apparently a weapon of mass destruction.

You are misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm talking on a personal level. I don't know the people who are torturing him but I can guarantee you that they are dealing with repercussions. Butterfly effect. I hate trying to describe my beliefs to people because they always turn it into some "YOU'RE ADVOCATING 9/11 KILLINGS WE'RE ACCEPTABLE" or "WHAT ABOUT HIROSHIMA" or some other stupidness. That's not what I said, and you are also misinterpreting my definition of right and wrong. Right: Driving in the correct lane of traffic and living. Wrong: Driving in the wrong lane and crashing into someone and dying. I'm not talking in a moral sense there. Everyone has the 6th sense. Get the fuck out of the way when danger is coming, ignoring the warning is your doom.

Quote:
I don't think "knowing" has much to do with it, though. Otherwise I agree with you. But the "knowing" part is classic attribution error. You should be more sympathetic to people. Most know not what they do.

I will sympathize with people who do not know, but have the desire to. I do not sympathize with the ignorant who do not care to know.

Quote: Oh my God who cares.

You do or you wouldn't be posting, and by saying this you are completely ignoring the point of my post.

She got what she wanted.

Thu May 07, 2009 10:33 am

Jesse

Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6165
Location: privileged homeless

jakethesnake wrote: My belief system exists because I believe that people get what they deserve. I believe that people punish themselves based on their own beliefs. "Bad" things happening to "Bad" people is a balancing factor. I believe that "bad" things happening to "good" people is a misunderstanding based on not having a complete view of a situation, just as "good" things happening to "bad" people is as well.

Your belief system is The Secret and it's preposterous.

Speaking as someone close to a number of survivors of childhood sexual abuse, I have to read your beliefs as including the idea that if a nine-year-old girl had just STAYED IN HER LANE her stepfather wouldn't have forced himself on her, or if she had just been more SENSIBLE and ACTED RIGHT her alcoholic mother wouldn't have locked her in the attic.

If the belief system you describe DOESN'T include that - how doesn't it?

Quote: As a former Catholic, I find Catholics to be the biggest offenders of their own 10 commandments simply because they can "ask for forgiveness" and "God will forgive".

Oh yeah? Hook us up with some of the statistical data you've gathered which proves that Catholics hold more gods ahead of Jehovah or want other people's things more or honour their parents less or make more pictures and sculptures of things. Or kill more or steal more or lie more! I'm not saying Catholics don't do those things - as a former Catholic, I hate that fuckin' organization passionately - but you don't "find" them to be "the biggest offenders," certainly not of the ten commandments in particular. Make more sense!

Quote: Bad things happen because people go against what they know to be right and wrong, good and evil, not because they go against what they pretend they believe is right or wrong.

So going against what you pretend to believe is right or wrong is proof against bad things ever happening?

Ugh I had a long, drawn out post written but I accidentally clicked the X on the tab in FF and closed it so here's the shortened version.

Jesse wrote: Your belief system is The Secret and it's preposterous.

Speaking as someone close to a number of survivors of childhood sexual abuse, I have to read your beliefs as including the idea that if a nine-year-old girl had just STAYED IN HER LANE her stepfather wouldn't have forced himself on her, or if she had just been more SENSIBLE and ACTED RIGHT her alcoholic mother wouldn't have locked her in the attic.

If the belief system you describe DOESN'T include that - how doesn't it?

When I was younger I witnessed someone in my extended family abuse someone I love, and I did nothing. It is one of the few regrets I have to this day. Although I was young, I should have known better and done something.

I'm not saying this applies to your situations for sure, but I can't say it doesn't either. I haven't lived your life, or the people's lives you are describing. I don't think that it is possible for repeated abuse to happen like you're describing without someone else having knowledge of it and choosing not to get involved. We're all in this together and have a responsibility to defend our fellow humans. I feel like that moment is one of my biggest failures as a being.

Like I said, I hate trying to describe my belief system to someone because I haven't lived their life. Someone will try to apply what I said to their own situation, or a grander one, that I'm not a part of. There are many unknowns that I cannot account for to try to makes sense of.

Quote:

Quote: As a former Catholic, I find Catholics to be the biggest offenders of their own 10 commandments simply because they can "ask for forgiveness" and "God will forgive".

Oh yeah? Hook us up with some of the statistical data you've gathered which proves that Catholics hold more gods ahead of Jehovah or want other people's things more or honour their parents less or make more pictures and sculptures of things. Or kill more or steal more or lie more! I'm not saying Catholics don't do those things - as a former Catholic, I hate that fuckin' organization passionately - but you don't "find" them to be "the biggest offenders," certainly not of the ten commandments in particular. Make more sense!

I simply have more experience with Catholics, having been raised so and been around them my entire life. I have seen first hand what "praying to God" does to someone's expectations to outcomes and how people apply their beliefs to that. I'm sure if I was raised under another stupid religion I'd feel the same way about that one. Does that make more sense?

Quote:

Quote: Bad things happen because people go against what they know to be right and wrong, good and evil, not because they go against what they pretend they believe is right or wrong.

So going against what you pretend to believe is right or wrong is proof against bad things ever happening?

Let me quote the Oracle on this:
We can never see past the choices we don't understand.

I don't really see things in terms of "bad" and "good". I see cause and effect. I really should have said people believe that "bad" or "good" things happen to them because they do not fully understand a situation.

I almost lost a thumb in a construction accident. I was pissed off and not paying attention, slipped on some ice and sliced it open down to the bone (and broke it). Another 1/4 inch and it probably would have been chopped off. At the time I thought it was the worst fucking thing in the world. Now I'm pretty grateful to have two opposable thumbs, and I'm reminded of this every time I look at my scar. I also learned that anger leads to "accidents" (I don't really believe in accidents or coincidence but there is no other term to use).

As much as I may look or be pegged as a pessimist, I'm really an optimist looking for a silver lining in everything.

Thu May 07, 2009 11:41 am

the meanCertified O.G.

Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6500
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio

Are any of us surprised that there is now a book and a (solo) sex tape?